WPCb> ugѼG!j5`rjnQ^g0Pw}KѾ ![i9hVq#VRt0HƐuxd\1`f $VnӇEE9#>EF!"ne@)|\QbԦ'+ayppN+)Z`#!@U Na % 0:^ w4 " m$ ; U NC 1u 72 N8 AQ:  0 ~j 0 D ,  38#7!V""$f@'aB'B'B'GV'U:(((( 0 1;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; B\<y< 0V?= 0V= 0D== D3/>HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,Prd'L tpO'+003|x U (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)Z[\]_C<<C ($USUS.,    1    _AsnotedbyWife,however,shealsoincurredbusinessexpensesin1995totaling  $30,000.00.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    4    _Attrial,WifeadmittedthatshehadengagedinanadulterousaffairwithDannerMartin,  oneofHusbandscoworkersatNorthwestAirlines.Additionally,Husbandadmittedthathehad  participatedinafew onenightstandsduringthepartiesmarriage. ($USUS.,    2    _Wifesubsequentlyunderwentsurgery,twomonthsofradiationtherapy,andsixmonths  ofchemotherapy. ) ($USUS.,    3    _Wifetestifiedthatshesuffersfromdepressionandfurtherstatedthat,atthetimeoftrial,  shewasbeingtreatedforthisconditionwithvariousprescriptionmedications. . ($USUS.,    5    _ThecourtalsoawardedtoHusbanda1989Toyota_Celica_ԀwithinstructionsthatHusband  istoconveytitletothisvehicletothepartiesdaughter.  ($USUS.,    7    _Thetrialcourtsrulingwithrespecttothedivisionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyis  summarizedasfollows:   |  *Yddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dd ,dd ,dd ,dd ,dd +   ITEMOF d MARITAL J PROPERTY  0 WIFES d PROPOSED J VALUE  0 HUSBANDS d PROPOSED J VALUE  0  VALUE d  FOUNDBY J  TRIALCOURT  0  PERSONTO d  WHOMITEM J AWARDED  0  XXResidence  Z $106,000.00 Z (equity)   h $117,390.23 Z (equity)   h N/A  Z 60%toWife Z 40%toHusband   h GibsonHouseboat  j  $18,268.52 j  (equity)  ( x $3,663.52 j  (equity)  ( x N/A  j  Husband  j  401KRetirement z  Account  8   $114,065.93  z ! $117,627.07  z " $125,414.00  z # 50%toWife z $ 50%toHusband  8 % NorthwestAirlines  & QualifiedStock  H ' $49,038.91   ( $27,659.67   ) $22,915.35   * 50%toWife  + 50%toHusband  H , NorthwestAirlines  - QualifiedStock X . CashAccount  f / $225.22   0 N/A   1 $2,988.79   2 50%toWife  3 50%toHusband  X 4 NorthwestAirlines h5 NonQualified &v6 Stock  47 $40,558.32  h8 $58,341.45  h9 $39,972.30  h: 50%toWife h; 50%toHusband  &v< NorthwestAirlines 6= NonQualified D> StockCash ? Account  p@ $14,954.25  6A N/A  6B $15,335.10  6C 50%toWife 6D 50%toHusband  DE MerrillLynchIRA  F $2,345.00  G $2,389.13  H N/A  I Wife  J 1990Cadillac dK Sedan  "L $2,500.00  dM $3,616.31  dN N/A  dO Wife  dP 1991Toyota4 $tQ Runner  2R $6,050.00  $tS $7,126.19  $tT N/A  $tU Husband  $tV 1989ToyotaCelica  4W N/A  4X $2,602.32  4Y N/A  4Z Husband(for 4[ PartiesDaughter)  B\ SkiBoat  D!] N/A  D!^ $3,250.00  D!_ N/A  D!` Husband  D!a HouseholdAssets  "b $19,705.00  "c $20,555.54  "d N/A  "e ItemsRequestedto "f Husbandwith T#g RemainingItemsto $bh Wife  $ i CreditUnion "&r!j Accounts  &0"k N/A  "&r!l N/A  "&r!m N/A  "&r!n 50%toWife "&r!o 50%toHusband &0"p   #X=X  #  ($USUS.,    8    _Onremand,ahearingshouldbeheldtodeterminetheprecisedollaramountofthestock  proceedsthatwereusedtopayHusbandsattorneyfees.Thetrialcourtshouldthenenteran  orderrequiringHusbandtopaytoWifeonehalfofthisamount. L ($USUS.,    6    _WhendividingHusbandsstockinNorthwestAirlines,thetrialcourtspecifically  includedcertainproceedsofHusbandssecondstocksaleremaininginhisattorneysescrow  account.  ($USUS.,    10    _Becausethetrialcourtdidnotmakespecificfindingsregardingthevaluesofcertain  piecesofmaritalproperty,weareunabletocalculatetheprecisevaluesofthemaritalproperty  thatwasawardedtotheparties.IfthevaluesproposedbyWifearetrue,Wifewouldreceivea | totalof$177,866.33inmaritalpropertywhileHusbandwouldreceiveamaritalpropertyaward b of$179,389.85.If,however,thevaluesproposedbyHusbandaretrue,Wifewouldreceivea H maritalpropertyawardof$185,843.43whileHusbandwouldreceiveonly$170,399.65inmarital . ~ property.X@TABLE A = ["USUS.,  _!X?XXX!X!X?   Ad FILED!X?X!  October30,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,yAZ"Arial Regular  ($USUS.,    9    _Thesefactorsareasfollows:  8   ` (1)Thedurationofthemarriage;|   8   ` (2)Theage,physicalandmentalhealth,vocationalskills,employability, b earningcapacity,estate,financialliabilitiesandfinancialneedsofeachofthe H parties;. ~   8   ` (3)Thetangibleorintangiblecontributionbyone(1)partytothe  d education,trainingorincreasedearningpoweroftheotherparty; J   8   ` (4)Therelativeabilityofeachpartyforfutureacquisitionofcapitalassets  0 andincome;     8   ` (5)Thecontributionofeachpartytotheacquisition,preservation,    appreciationordissipationofthemaritalorseparateproperty,includingthe   contributionofapartytothemarriageashomemaker,wageearnerorparent,with x  thecontributionofapartyashomemakerorwageearnertobegiventhesame ^  weightifeachpartyhasfulfilleditsrole;D    8   ` (6)Thevalueoftheseparatepropertyofeachparty;*z    8   ` (7)Theestateofeachpartyatthetimeofthemarriage;`   8   ` (8)Theeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimethedivisionof F propertyistobecomeeffective;,   8   ` (9)Thetaxconsequencestoeachparty;and   8   ` (10)Suchotherfactorsasarenecessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetween  theparties.   Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(1996). ($USUS.,    11    _Thesefactorsareasfollows:  8   ` (A)Therelativeearningcapacity,obligations,needs,andfinancial | resourcesofeachparty,includingincomefrompension,profitsharingor b retirementplansandallothersources;H   8   ` (B)Therelativeeducationandtrainingofeachparty,theabilityand . ~ opportunityofeachpartytosecuresucheducationandtraining,andthenecessity  d ofapartytosecurefurthereducationandtrainingtoimprovesuchpartysearning  J capacitytoareasonablelevel; 0   8   ` (C)Thedurationofthemarriage;     8   ` (D)Theageandmentalconditionofeachparty;     8   ` (E)Thephysicalconditionofeachparty,including,butnotlimitedto,    physicaldisabilityorincapacityduetoachronicdebilitatingdisease;   8   ` (F)Theextenttowhichitwouldbeundesirableforapartytoseek  employmentoutsidethehomebecausesuchpartywillbecustodianofaminor | childofthemarriage;b   8   ` (G)Theseparateassetsofeachparty,bothrealandpersonal,tangibleand H intangible;. ~   8   ` (H)Theprovisionsmadewithregardtothemaritalpropertyasdefinedin  d 364121; J   8   ` (I)Thestandardoflivingofthepartiesestablishedduringthemarriage; 0   8   ` (J)Theextenttowhicheachpartyhasmadesuchtangibleandintangible    contributionstothemarriageasmonetaryandhomemakercontributions,and    tangibleandintangiblecontributionsbyapartytotheeducation,trainingor   increasedearningpoweroftheotherparty;x    8   ` (K)Therelativefaultofthepartiesincaseswherethecourt,inits ^  discretion,deemsitappropriatetodoso;andD    8   ` (L)Suchotherfactors,includingthetaxconsequencestoeachparty,asare *z  necessarytoconsidertheequitiesbetweentheparties.`   Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(d)(1)(Supp.1998).(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  YYYY'dxd !USUS.,  __TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T_@h h  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,  @kk%ATJACKSON   @:: _________________________________________________________________   `     h   )',XXX' KATHERYNLAKEGRIFFIN ,0  )0(#(#ShelbyCountyChanceryCourt$ t(#(#   )0  No.0271953R.D. d(#(# ЀPlaintiff/Appellant,0  ) P (#(#   )0   < (#(# VS.0  )0(#(#C.A.No.02A019807CH00177( (#(#   ) STEVENMARSHALLGRIFFIN ,0  ) (#(#   )̀Defendant/Appellee.0  ) (#(#   )x _B2.jz`  `@EA` 8ttxPy x______________________________________________________________________________FromtheChanceryCourtofShelbyCountyatMemphis. HonorableD.J.Alissandratos,Chancellor  (x  RichardF.Vaughn ,Memphis,Tennessee ( AttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. TheresaH.Patterson ,Memphis,Tennessee x AttorneyforDefendant/Appellee.  h  OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDINPARTANDREMANDED0  %@!$ (# (#   0  0p(#(# FARMER,J.)$(p(#p(# HIGHERS,J. (Concurs) d,'+  TATUM,Sr.J. (Concurs) @.)-  ,;|6; 0,X` X,XX0    X=XXX `  Inthisdisputebetween_Katheryn_ԀLakeGriffin( Wife)andStevenMarshallGriffin :5< _( Husband),Wifeappealsfromanorderofthetrialcourt(1)grantingadivorcetobothparties,(2)  dividingthepartiesmaritalproperty,(3)refusingWifesrequestforalimony,and(4)refusing | Wifesrequestforattorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weaffirm H inpart,reverseinpart,andremandthecausetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith  d thisopinion.   0 @FactualandProceduralHistory x    ` ThepartiesweremarriedinJulyof1973whenbothwereeighteenyearsofage.Two ` childrenwerebornduringthemarriage,bothofwhomhadreachedtheageofmajorityatthetime , oftrial.Afternearlytwentythreeyearsofmarriage,thepartiesseparatedinAprilof1996.   ` Priortothepartiesmarriage,Husbandhadobtainedaprivatepilotslicense.During @ theearlyyearsofthemarriage,heearnedadegreeinaccountingandsubsequentlyjoinedtheAir  \ Force.AfterhisretirementfromtheAirForce,Husbandheldaseriesofpositionswithsmallairlines ( andfreightcarriersuntilhewasabletoattainenoughflighthourstoqualifyforapositionwitha  majorairline.In1986,HusbandobtainedapositionwithRepublicAirlines,whichwassubsequently p!  acquiredbyNorthwestAirlines.Atthetimeoftrial,HusbandwasemployedasaDC9captainby <#" NorthwestAirlinesearningagrosssalaryof$129,444.00peryear. %X $  ` Wifedidnotattainadegreeduringthepartiesmarriagebutinsteadstayedathome (#( withthechildren.Wifealsoearnedmoneyforthefamilyduringthisperiodbyperformingvarious l*%* sewingrelatedjobsathome.Wifeattemptedatsomepointduringthemarriagetoobtainadegree 8,', infashiondesignbutdidnotfinishtherequiredcoursework.In1994,Wifeobtainedarealestate .T). licenseandbeganworkingforRe/MaxGreatProperties,grossing$9,677.95in1994,$82,437.00in / +0 1995,and$45,706.95in1996. #  1      ׀AfterbeingdiagnosedwithbreastcancerinAprilof1996,however, 1,2 WifebecamephysicallyunabletoshowhousesforRe/MaxGreatProperties.\ #  2      ׀InOctoberof1997, h3.4 WifebecameassociatedwithCryeLeikeRealtorsasanagent.Sometimethereafter,shebecame 4506 mentallyandphysicallyunabletosellrealestate. #  3      ׀Atthetimeoftrial,shewasworkingparttime  atGoldsmithsdepartmentstoregrossingapproximately$439.00permonth.Additionally,however, | WifehadbeenadmittedtotheUniversityofMemphisandwasinterestedinobtainingadegreein H salesmanagement.   d  #X=XX X= # X=XXX=#X=XX X=# X=XXX=  ` InMayof1996,WifefiledacomplaintseekingadivorcefromHusbandonthe    groundsofirreconcilabledifferencesandrequestingthatthetrialcourtawardheralimony,attorneys x  fees,andlitigationexpenses pendentelite .Husbandsubsequentlyfiledananswerandcounter D  complaint,allegingbothirreconcilabledifferencesandinappropriatemaritalconductasgroundsfor ` divorce.AfterahearingbeforeadivorcerefereeregardingWifesmotion pendentelite ,thetrial , courtenteredanorderallowing  WifetousefundsadvancedonHusbandsMastercardaccounttopay  formedicalrelatedexpensesandforparkingfeesofupto$100.00permonth.  Wifelateramended t heroriginalcomplainttoallegeinappropriatemaritalconductasadditionalgroundsfordivorce. @ DuringahearingonWifescomplaintandHusbandscountercomplaint,thepartiesstipulatedas  \ togroundsfordivorce.Attheconclusionofthishearing,thetrialcourt(1)notedtheparties ( stipulationastogrounds,(2)foundthatthepartieswereequallyatfault,\ #  4      ׀#X=XX X=(# X=XXX=(3)dividedtheparties  maritalpropertyandallocatedthepartiesmaritaldebt,(4)ruledthatneitherpartywasentitledto p!  alimonyofanykind,and(5)concludedthatbothpartiesshouldbearthecostsoftheirownattorneys <#" fees.Thetrialcourtsubsequentlyenteredafinaldecreeofdivorceincorporatingthisruling. %X $ HusbandfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentpursuanttoRule60oftheTennesseeRules &$"& ofCivilProcedure.Afterahearingonthematter,thetrialcourtdeniedHusbandsmotion.This (#( appealbyWifefollowed. l*%*  @IssuesandStandardofReview 8,',  ` Theissuesraisedonappeal,asstatedbyWife,areasfollows: / +0 8 ` I.Whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoawardtheplaintiff h3.4 alimony infuturo andrehabilitativealimony?N4/5` x` x  4506 ! ! &(Eh83 8 ` II.Whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoconsidermaritalassets  dissipatedbythehusband?` x` x 8 ` III.Whetherthetrialcourterredinthedivisionofmaritalproperty?b` x` x 8 ` IV.Whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoawardtheplaintiff . ~ attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses?" d` x` x Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de    novo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See T.R.A.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynotreversethese x  findingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv. D  Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);T.R.A.P.13(d).Withrespecttothetrialcourtslegal ` conclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellex , rel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,FurenandGinsburg,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.  1999);T.R.A.P.13(d). t #X=XX X=# X=XXX=@ZZ DivisionofMaritalProperty  \  ` Wifearguesonappealthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoconsidercertainassets  dissipatedbyHusbandwhendividingthepartiesmaritalproperty.Additionally,Wifecontendsthat p!  thedivisionofmaritalpropertyorderedbythetrialcourtisnotequitable.Withrespecttothe <#" partiesmaritalassets,thetrialcourtawardedtoWifethepartiesMerrillLynchIRAand1990 %X $ CadillacSedanwhileHusbandwasawardedthepartiesGibsonhouseboat,skiboat,and1989 &$"& Toyota4Runner. #  5      ׀Thecourtfurtherorderedthatthepartieshome,theirmostvaluablemarital (#( asset,besoldandthatthenetproceedsofthesalebedistributedsixtypercenttoWifeandforty l*%* percenttoHusband.Finally,thecourtdividedHusbands401Kretirementaccountandhisqualified 8,', andnonqualifiedstockinNorthwestAirlinesequallybetweentheparties.\ #  6      ׀Withrespecttothe .T). partieshouseholdassets,HusbandreceivedallitemsthatherequestedandWifereceivedthe / +0 remainderofthehouseholditems. #  7      ׀ 1,2 Ї ` Wifearguedattrialthat,afterthepartiesseparationbutpriortotrial,Husband  dissipatedcertainmaritalassetsandthat,accordingly,thecourtshouldconsiderthedissipationof | theseassetswhenmakinganequitabledistributionofthepartiesmaritalproperty.Specifically, H WifearguedthatHusbanddissipatedthepartiesmaritalassetsby(1)withdrawing$10,000.00from  d his401Kretirementaccount,(2)selling316sharesofNorthwestAirlinesqualifiedstockvaluedat  0 $14,683.26,and(3)sellinganother460sharesofNorthwestAirlinesqualifiedstockvaluedat    $22,689.41.Thetrialcourtdisagreed,statingsimplythatWifesproofofdissipationwasnot x  persuasive. D   ` Thereisampleevidenceintherecordexplainingtheaforementionedtransactionsand , accountingfortheproceedsderivedfromHusbands401Kwithdrawalandstocksales.First,ofthe  $10,000.00withdrawnfromHusbands401Kaccount,$7,500.00wasusedtopayHusbands1996 | incometaxes,aportionofwhichaccruedpriortothepartiesseparation.Wethinkthatthisisan H appropriateuseofthepartiesmaritalassets.Husbandalsosold316sharesofstockvaluedat  d $14,683.26.Afterwithholdingtwentypercentoftheproceedsfromthissaleforpenaltiesand  0 federaltaxes,Husbandultimatelyreceived$11,745.61,themajorityofwhichwasusedtopayoff    a$10,000.00cashadvancetakenbyWifeonHusbandsMastercardaccountpursuanttothetrial x  courtsorderonWifesmotion pendentelite .Inthisorder,  thetrialcourtdidnotdirectHusband D  tousehisseparatepropertytopaythebalanceofhisMastercardaccount.Rather,thecourtsimply ` statedthatHusband shallpaythecreditcarddebt...asitbecomesdueeachmonth.Wecannot , faultHusbandforusingmaritalassetstosatisfythisobligation.Finally,Husbandreceived  $22,689.41innetproceedsfromthesaleof460sharesofstockandplaced$20,000.00ofthese t proceedsinhisattorneysescrowaccount.Atthetimeoftrial,approximately$3,000.00remained @ inthisaccount.Withrespecttotheseremainingfunds,thefollowingexchangetookplacebetween  \ thetrialcourtandcounselforHusband: ( 8 ` TheCourt:0` x` xDidyoualreadyremovethatmoneyfromyourescrow p!  accountandappliedittowardsyourfee?V"!xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Counsel:0` x` xYes,sir."$r#xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` TheCourt:0` x` xOkay.Isanyofitleftintheescrow?%>!%xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Counsel:0` x` xAbout$3,000.' #'xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` TheCourt:0` x` xAllright.Welldividewhatsleftintheescrow )$) account.Becauseifthehorsesarealreadyoutofthe l*%* barn,theresnothingwecandoaboutthat;butifthe R+&+ horsesarestillinthebarn,thenIintendontreating 8,', thatasamaritalasset.P:-n(-xx Thus,althoughthecourtdisapprovedofHusbandsuseofmaritalassetstopayhisattorneysfees, 0,1 itwasapparentlyundertheassumptionthatthefundsremovedfromtheattorneysescrowaccount 2-3 couldnotbe corralledbackintothebarn.Inrulingthat eachofthepartiesshallbearthecosts N4/5 oftheirownattorneysfees,itispresumedthatthetrialcourtintendedforthepartiestosatisfytheir 6j17 attorneysfeesusingeitherseparatepropertyorassetsawardedtothemundertheirfinaldecreeof 7639 divorce.ByallowingHusbandtousetheaforementionedstockproceedstopayhisattorneysfees, 95; thetrialcourteffectivelymadethesefeesanobligationofbothWifeandHusband.Inlightofthe ~;6= courtsrulingthateachpartyshouldbearthecostofhisorherownattorneysfees,wethinkthatthis  wasimproper.Thus,weagreethatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoconsiderHusbandsdissipation | oftheseproceedswhenmakinganequitabledistributionofthepartiesmaritalproperty. H Accordingly,thetrialcourtsrulingwithrespecttothismatterisreversed. #  8      ׀  d   ` Asstatedabove,Wifealsocontendsonappealthatthetrialcourtfailedtomakean    equitabledistributionofthepartiesmaritalproperty.Whendividingmaritalpropertyupondivorce, x  thetrialcourtmustconsiderallrelevantfactors,includingthosesetforthinsection364121ofthe D  TennesseeCodeAnnotated. See Tenn.CodeAnn.364121(c)(1996).$B #  9      ׀  Althoughthedistribution ` mustbeequitable,thecourtisnotrequiredtodividethepartiesmaritalpropertyequally. See , Cohenv.Cohen ,937S.W.2d823,832(Tenn.1996); Wattersv.Watters ,959S.W.2d585,591  (Tenn.App.1997); Bookoutv.Bookout ,954S.W.2d730,732(Tenn.App.1997).Theequityor t inequityofacourtsdistributionofmaritalpropertyisdeterminedbyexaminingthefinalresultof @ thecourtsrulingratherthanthedivisionofanyparticularpieceorcategoryofmaritalproperty. See  \ Watters ,959S.W.2dat591; Bookout ,954S.W.2dat732; Wadev.Wade ,897S.W.2d702,717 ( (Tenn.App.1994); Thompsonv.Thompson ,797S.W.2d599,604(Tenn.App.1990) .#X=XX X=B)# X=XXX=  Additionally,wenotethattrialcourtsareaffordedagreatdealofdiscretionwhendividingmarital p!  property. SeeFisherv.Fisher ,648S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1983); Bookout ,954S.W.2dat732;   Wade ,897S.W.2dat715; Kochv.Koch ,874S.W.2d571,579(Tenn.App.1993); Loydv.Loyd , | 860S.W.2d409,411(Tenn.App.1993).Consistentwiththisgeneralrule,thedistributionof H maritalpropertymadebythetrialcourtintheinstantcaseisentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness  d andmaynotbereversedunlessitiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. SeeWade ,897  0 S.W.2dat715; Loyd ,860S.W.2dat411; Barnhillv.Barnhill ,826S.W.2d443,450(Tenn.App.    1991);T.R.A.P.13(d). x   ` InrulingonWifesrequestforalimony,thetrialcourtcarefullyconsideredandmade ` specificfindingsregardingmanyofthesamefactorsasthosesetforthinsection364121.Wife , wasawardedapproximatelyonehalfofthepartiesmaritalassets. #  10      ׀Additionally,asnotedbythe  trialcourt,Husbandwasorderedtoassumeagreaterpercentageofthepartiesmaritaldebt.After t reviewingtheentirerecordinthecaseatbar,weconcludethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderate @ againstthetrialcourtsdistributionofthepartiesmaritalproperty.Thus,withrespecttothismatter,  \ thetrialcourtsrulingisaffirmed.#X=XX X=I# X=XXX= ( #X=XX X=mQ# X=XXX= @'Alimony p!    ` Attrial,Wiferequestedbothrehabilitativealimonyandalimony infuturo .  Inruling %X $ ontheserequests,thetrialcourtdiscussedeachofthefactorssetforthinsection365101ofthe &$"& TennesseeCodeAnnotated,% #  11      ׀ultimatelyconcludingthat itdoesnotfindfromthetotalityofthe (#( proofthatitisacaseforconsiderationofalimonyofanysortwhentheCourtappliesthelawto  alimonyconsideringallthefactorsthattheCourtmustconsiderandhasconsideredaboutthestatute, | consideringthestrongevidenceinthismatterastotheabilitiesoftheparties,theassetsthatthey H have,andthewaytheCourtwillbedividingtheassets.Onappeal,Wifechallengesthisportion  d ofthetrialcourtsruling.  0  ` Asaninitialmatter,wenotethatatrialcourthasbroaddiscretiontodetermine x  whetheralimonyisappropriateand,ifso,thenature,amount,anddurationofthealimonyawarded. D   SeeAndertonv.Anderton ,988S.W.2d675,682(Tenn.App.1998)(citing Garfinkelv.Garfinkel , ` 945S.W.2d744,748(Tenn.App.1996); Jonesv.Jones ,784S.W.2d349,352(Tenn.App.1989)). , Therearenohardandfastrulestobeappliedincasesinvolvingarequestforalimony. Seeid.   (citing Crainv.Crain ,925S.W.2d232,233(Tenn.App.1996); Stonev.Stone ,409S.W.2d388, t 39293(Tenn.App.1966)).Rather,decisionsregardingalimonyhingeontheuniquefactsofthe @ caseandinvolvethecarefulconsiderationandbalancingofthefactorssetforthinsection365101.  \  Seeid. at683  (citing Hawkinsv.Hawkins ,883S.W.2d622,625(Tenn.App.1994); Loyd ,860 ( S.W.2dat412).Accordingly,appellatecourtsarereluctanttosecondguessatrialcourtsdecision  regardingalimonyandwillnotdisturbsuchadecisionunlessitisunsupportedbytheevidenceor p!  contrarytothepublicpoliciessetforthinapplicableTennesseestatutes. Seeid. at382  (citing <#"  Brownv.Brown ,913S.W.2d163,169(Tenn.App.1994); Ingramv.Ingram ,721S.W.2d262,264 %X $ (Tenn.App.1986)). &$"&  (#(  ` WefirstaddresswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingWifesrequestfor  rehabilitativealimony.InTennessee,thereisastatutorypreferencefortemporary,rehabilitative | alimonywhenaneconomicallydisadvantagedspouseisinneedofsupport. See Tenn.CodeAnn. H 365101(d)(1)(Supp.1998).Thepurposeofrehabilitativealimonyistoenableaneconomically  d disadvantagedspousetobecomemoreselfsufficientbyacquiringadditionaljobskills,education,  0 ortraining. SeeAnderton ,988S.W.2dat682(citing Smithv.Smith ,912S.W.2d155,160(Tenn.    App.1995); Cranfordv.Cranford ,772S.W.2d48,51(Tenn.App.1989)).Intheinstantcase,Wife x  contendsthatsheisunabletomakealivingasarealestatebecause(1)shehasbeendiagnosedwith D  andtreatedforbreastcancer,(2)shesuffersfromandtakesprescriptionmedicationfordepression, ` (3)shenolongerhashercontactsatHusbandsplaceofemployment,and(4)shewouldnothave , adequateretirementorhealthbenefitsasarealestateagent.Additionally,Wifehasexpresseda  desiretoattendtheUniversityofMemphisandobtainadegreeinsalesmanagement.Withrespect t toWifesearningcapacity,thetrialcourtfoundasfollows: @ 8 ` [T]heCourtfinds,specifically,thatthewifehasasubstantialearning ( capacity;thatshehasdeprivedherselfofforreasonsthattheCourt  cannotacceptasmedicallyjustifiable.TheCourtfindsthatsheis  grosslyunderemployedandhastheabilitytoearnconsiderablymore   thanthatwhichshedoesearn.TheCourtparticularlynotesthatone p!  ofherownwitnessestestified,Ms.LubianiV"!` x` x 8 `  ...."$r#` x` x 8 `  ...thatshehadabrightfuture,arisingstar,andtheCourt %>!% agreeswiththat.Andalso,theCourtfindsthateventheotherwitness &$"& thattestifiedno,thatwasit.' #'` x` x 8 `  TheCourtfindsthatsoinaccordancewiththestatute, )$) applyingcriteria, A,theCourtdoesnotfindthatthatmitigatesin l*%* favorofanalimonyaward.R+&+` x` x 8 `  Inlookingat B,therelativeeducationandtraining,the -n(- Courtfindsthatwhilethewifeisnotwelleducatedintermsofan .T). advanceddegree,theCourtwillfindthatsheiswelleducatedin .:*/ termsofthatpurposeoftheeducationatthisjuncture,whichisto / +0 earnaliving.Forafterall,partofthetheotherpartofthatisto 0,1 provesuchpartiesearningcapacitytoareasonablelevel,andthe 1,2 Courtfindsthatshehasthat.2-3` x` x cTheevidenceintherecordsupportsthisfinding.JeanineLubiani,whoservedasWifesmanager 6j17 atCryeLeikeRealtors,testifiedthattherealestatebusinessisarewardingbutstressfulprofession 7639 andisnotveryphysicallydemanding.Wedoubtthatthephysicalandmentaldemandsofthereal 95; estatebusinessaresignificantlygreaterthanthoseexperiencedbyapersonpursuingacareerinsales ~;6= management.Additionally,Ms.Lubianiexpressedheropinionthat,  basedonWifesgrosssales  duringherfirstyearofrealestatesales,Wifehasabrightfutureasarealestateagent.Wedisagree | withWifescontentionthat,becauseshelosthercontactswithHusbandsemployer,shenolonger H hasafutureasarealestateagent.NotallofWifesrealestatecontactswereacquiredthrough  d Husband.Rather,shealsoacquiredcontactsthroughfriends,family,andMr.Martin,withwhom  0 shecontinuestohavearomanticrelationship.Finally,withrespecttotheissueofretirementand    healthbenefits,thereisevidenceintherecordthatCryeLeikeRealtorsrecentlybeganofferingits x  agentshealthinsurance.Additionally,therecorddoesnotindicatethatWifeisunabletoobtain D  privatehealthinsurance.Thus,likethetrialcourt,weconcludethatWifehastheabilitytoearna ` livingasarealestateagentandthatthereisnoneedforrehabilitationinthecaseatbar. , Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofWifesrequestforrehabilitativealimony.   ` WenextaddresswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingWifesrequestforalimony @  infuturo .Thepurposeofalimony infuturo istoprovidesupporttoaneconomicallydisadvantaged  \ spousewhoisunabletobecomeselfsufficientthroughrehabilitation. SeeAnderton ,988S.W.2d ( at682(citing Loriav.Loria ,952S.W.2d836,838(Tenn.App.1997)).Asstatedabove,wethink  thatWifecurrentlyhastheabilitytoearnalivingasarealestateagentandthushasthepotentialto p!  achieveselfsufficiency.Weareconcerned,however,thatWifemayatsomepointinthefuture <#" becomeunabletoearnaliving.Atthetimeoftrial,Wifescancerwasinremission.Wifetestified, %X $ however,thatthereisachancethathercancermayrecur.Dr.KirbyL.Smith,Wifestreating &$"& physician,testifiedthatalthoughthelikelihoodofimminentrecurrenceisnotgreat,thislikelihood (#( willincreaseoverthenextfewyears.Dr.SmithfurthertestifiedthatWifesparticulartypeofcancer l*%* hasthepotentialtorecurwithinanywherefromafewyearstomorethantenyears.Intheeventthat 8,', Wifescancerrecurs,Wifesearningcapacitywillundoubtedlybeaffectedandsheislikelytoincur .T). significantmedicalexpenses.Undersuchcircumstances,wethinkWifeisentitledtoatleasta / +0 nominalawardofalimony infuturo which,intheeventofasubstantialandmaterialchangeof 1,2 circumstancessuchastherecurrenceofWifescancer,maybemodifiedtoreflectthechanged h3.4 positionsoftheparties. See Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1)(Supp.1998).Wefindthatan 4506 appropriateamountofalimony infuturo intheinstantcaseis$100.00permonth.Thus,thetrial 7P28 courtsdenialofWifesrequestforalimony infuturo isreversedandthecourtisinstructedtoenter 84: anorderonremandawardingWife$100.00permonthasalimony infuturo .  :5<   @b b AttorneysFeesandLitigationExpenses |  ` Finally,WifecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoorderHusbandtopayher  d attorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses.Inthecontextofdivorce,anawardofattorneyfeesistreated  0 asalimony. SeeGilliamv.Gilliam ,776S.W.2d81,86(Tenn.App.1988).Thequestionofwhether    toawardattorneyfeesinsuchcases,andtheamountthereof,arelargelyleftwithinthediscretion x  ofthetrialcourtandwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlessthetrialcourtsrulingiscontrarytothe D  preponderanceoftheevidence. SeeHoughlandv.Houghland ,844S.W.2d619,623(Tenn.App. ` 1992)(citing Batsonv.Batson ,769S.W.2d849,862(Tenn.App.1988); Lyon ,765S.W.2dat762 , 63).Indeterminingwhethertoawardattorneysfees,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoconsiderthesame  factorsusedwhenconsideringaspousesrequestforalimony. Seeid. ;Tenn.CodeAnn.365 t 101(d)(1)(Supp.1998).Accordingly,amongotherfactors,thecourtmustconsider [t]heprovision @ madewithregardtothemaritalpropertyasdefinedin364121.Tenn.CodeAnn.365  \ 101(d)(1)(H)(Supp.1998).Inthecaseatbar,Wifewasawarded  maritalpropertyvaluedatmore ( than$177,000.00.IncludedinthisawardisWifesrighttoreceivesixtypercentoftheproceeds  fromthesaleofthepartiesresidencewhich,accordingtoWife,hasanequityof$106,000.00. p!  BecausewefindthatWifesportionoftheseproceedsisasufficientawardfromwhichtopayher <#" attorneysfees,weconcludethatthetrialcourtsdenialofherrequestforattorneysfeesisnot %X $ contrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. &$"&  ` WifesrequestforlitigationexpensesisgovernedbyRule54.04oftheTennessee l*%* RulesofCivilProcedure,whichprovidesinpertinentpartasfollows: 8,', 8 `  (2)Costsnotincludedinthebillofcostspreparedbytheclerk / +0 areallowableonlyinthecourtsdiscretion.Discretionarycosts 0,1 allowableare:reasonableandnecessarycourtreporterexpensesfor 1,2 depositionsortrials,reasonableandnecessaryexpertwitnessfeesfor 2-3 depositionsortrials,andguardianadlitemfees;travelexpensesare h3.4 notallowableasdiscretionarycosts.N4/5` x` x T.R.C.P.54.04(2).Trialcourtsaregenerallyaffordedagreatdealofdiscretionwhenconsidering 7639 whethertoawardcosts.Accordingly,absentaclearabuseofdiscretion,atrialcourtsdecision 95; regardingthismatterwillnotbealteredonappeal. See,e.g.,Perduev.GreenBranchMiningCo.,  ~;6= 837S.W.2d56,60(Tenn.1992).Becausewedonotthinkthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion,  weconcludethatthecourtdidnoterrinfailingtoorderHusbandtopayWifeslitigationexpenses. |  ` WethereforeaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofWifesrequestforattorneysfeesand  0 litigationexpenses.     @%Conclusion D   ` Basedontheforegoing,wehold(1)that,withtheexceptionofthestockproceeds , usedbyHusbandtopayhisattorneysfees,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtoconsidercertain  assetsdissipatedbyHusbandwhendividingthepartiesmaritalproperty,(2)thatthetrialcourts t divisionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyisequitable,(3)thatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingto @ awardWiferehabilitativealimony,(4)thatthetrialcourtdiderrinrefusingtoawardWifealimony  \  infuturo ,and(5)thatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingWifesrequestforattorneysfeesand ( litigationexpenses.Accordingly,therulingofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinpart,reversedinpart,and  remandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Onremand,thetrialcourtis p!  instructedtoenteranorderrequiringHusbandtopaytoWifeonehalfoftheamountpaidtohis <#" attorneywithstockproceedsandawardingWifealimony infuturo intheamountof$100.00per %X $ month.ThecostsofthisappealaretaxedonehalftoWifeandonehalftoHusband,forwhich &$"& executionmayissueifnecessary.#X=XX X=Q# X=XXX= (#(  `     h     _______________________________________ 8,',  `     h     FARMER,J. -n(- ______________________________ 0,1 HIGHERS,J. 1,2 ______________________________ 4506 TATUM,Sr.J. 6j17 #X=XX X=,#